Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T20:24:04.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theories, Models, and Equations in Biology: The Heuristic Search for Emergent Simplifications in Neurobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kenneth F. Schaffner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers claims that biology should seek general theories similar to those found in physics but argues for an alternative framework for biological theories as collections of prototypical interlevel models that can be extrapolated by analogy to different organisms. This position is exemplified in the development of the Hodgkin-Huxley giant squid model for action potentials, which uses equations in specialized ways. This model is viewed as an “emergent unifier.” Such unifiers, which require various simplifications, involve the types of heuristics discussed in Wimsatt's writings on reduction, but with a twist. Here, the heuristics are used to generate emergent rather than reductive explanations.

Type
Where Neuroscience Meets Physics: Laws, Explanation, and the Hodgkin-Huxley Model of the Action Potential
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 1008 - 1021
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Jim Bogen, Carl Craver, Marcel Weber, and Bill Wimsatt for comments and to the National Science Foundation for grants 0324367 and 0628825. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

Bogen, James (2005), “Regularities and Causality: Generalizations and Causal Explanations”, Regularities and Causality: Generalizations and Causal Explanations 36:397–420.Google ScholarPubMed
Craver, Carl F. (2007), Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culp, Sylvia, and Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Theory Structure and Theory Change in Contemporary Molecular Biology”, Theory Structure and Theory Change in Contemporary Molecular Biology 40:459–483.Google Scholar
Fodor, Anthony A. (2007), “The Hodgkin-Huxley Model of the Action Potential”, interactive Java simulation of the HH model, http://www.afodor.net/HHModel.htm.Google Scholar
Hille, Bertil (2001), Ion Channels of Excitable Membranes. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Hodgkin, Alan L. (1964), “The Ionic Basis of Nervous Conduction”, The Ionic Basis of Nervous Conduction 145:1148–1154.Google ScholarPubMed
Hodgkin, Alan L., and Huxley, Andrew F. (1952), “A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve”, A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve 117:500–544.Google ScholarPubMed
Huxley, Andrew F. (1964), “Excitation and Conduction in Nerve: Quantitative Analysis”, Excitation and Conduction in Nerve: Quantitative Analysis 145:1154–1159.Google ScholarPubMed
Kandel, Eric R., Schwartz, James H., and Jessell, Theodore M. (2000), Principles of Neural Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, 1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences 18:335–373.Google Scholar
Koch, Christof (2004), The Quest for Consciousness. Englewood, CO: Roberts.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. (1968), “On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range”, in Merton, Robert K. (ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alex (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael (1973), Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1980), “Theory Structure in the Biomedical Sciences”, Theory Structure in the Biomedical Sciences 5:57–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1986), “Exemplar Reasoning about Biological Models and Diseases: A Relation between Philosophy of Medicine and Philosophy of Science”, Exemplar Reasoning about Biological Models and Diseases: A Relation between Philosophy of Medicine and Philosophy of Science 11:63–80.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1993), Discovery and Explanation in the Biomedical Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (2006), “Reduction: The Cheshire Cat Problem and a Return to Roots”, Reduction: The Cheshire Cat Problem and a Return to Roots 151 (3): 377–402..Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (2007), “Theories, Models, and Equations in Systems Biology”, in Boogerd, Fred C., Bruggeman, Frank J., Hofmeyr, Jan-Hendrik S., and Westerhoff, Hans V. (eds.), Systems Biology: Philosophical Foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (2008), “Etiological Models in Psychiatry: Reductive and Nonreductive”, in Kendler, Kenneth and Parnas, Josef (eds.), Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Siegelbaum, S. A., and Koester, J. (2000), “Ion Channels”, in Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessell 2000, 105–123.Google Scholar
Stratton, Julius A. (1941), Electromagnetic Theory. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1968), General System Theory. New York: Braziler.Google Scholar
von Neumann, John (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Translated by Beyer, R. T.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waddington, Conrad H. (1968), “Introduction”, in Waddington, Conrad H. (ed.), Towards a Theoretical Biology. vol. 1. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Weber, Marcel (2004), Philosophy of Experimental Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1980). “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Vol. 2, Case Studies. Dordrecht: Reidel, 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (2006), “Reductionism and Its Heuristics: Making Methodological Reductionism Honest”, Reductionism and Its Heuristics: Making Methodological Reductionism Honest 151 (3): 445–475..Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (2007), Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar